Paradoxes inspired by José Benardete have been used in arguments for temporal finitism and causal finitism. Joseph C. Schmid has argued that there is a symmetry between those arguments and a corresponding argument against an endless future with respect to Koons’ patchwork principle using intrinsically identical copies of situations involving God revealing a future. I argue that this symmetry argument has limitations a theist can exploit to avoid the problem. A precognitive grandfather paradox about using simple foreknowledge to reveal the future that is redolent of the grandfather paradox against time travel illustrates why one might prefer a type of subjunctive foreknowledge over simple foreknowledge with respect to revealing the future, and a test for intrinsicality reveals that the future-revealing quality need not be intrinsic to a situation containing a subjunctively foreknowing God revealing the future.

中文翻译：

---

严峻的结局就在眼前：施密德的严峻死神对称论证、前知祖父悖论和内在性测试


受何塞·贝纳德特 （José Benardete） 启发的悖论已被用于时间有限论和因果有限论的论证。约瑟夫·施密德（Joseph C. Schmid）认为，这些论点与反对无尽未来的相应论点之间存在对称性，这与昆斯的拼凑原则有关，使用了涉及上帝揭示未来的情况的本质相同的副本。我认为这个对称性论证有有神论者可以利用的局限性来避免这个问题。一个关于使用简单预知来揭示未来的预知祖父悖论，让人联想到反对时间旅行的祖父悖论，这说明了为什么在揭示未来方面，人们可能更喜欢一种虚拟式预知而不是简单的预知，而对内在性的测试揭示了未来，对于包含虚拟式预知上帝揭示未来的情况来说，揭示未来的品质不一定是内在的。